The Truth about Jesus : Is He a Myth? Part 15

The Reverend debater attempts to belittle the Jerusalem career of Jesus, by suggesting that he was not there much, when according to the Gospels, it was in that city that his ministry began and culminated.

Again, to our argument that Paul never refers to any of the teachings of Jesus, the Reverend replies: "Nor is it of consequence that Paul _seldom_ quotes the words of Jesus." _"Seldom"_---would imply that Paul quotes Jesus sometimes. We say Paul gives not a single quotation to prove that he knew of a teaching Jesus. He had heard of a crucified, risen, Christ--one who had also inst.i.tuted a bread and wine supper, but of Jesus as a _teacher_ and of his _teaching,_ Paul is absolutely ignorant.

But by saying "Paul _seldom_ quotes Jesus," Dr. Barton tries to produce the impression that Paul quotes Jesus, though not very often, which is not true. There is not a single miracle, parable or moral teaching attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of which Paul seems to possess any knowledge whatever.

Nor is it true that it is of no consequence that "Paul seldom quotes the words of Jesus." For it proves that the Gospel Jesus was unknown to Paul, and that he was created at a later date.

Once more; we say that the only Jesus Paul knew was the one he met in a trance on his way to Damascus. To this the pastor of the First Congregational Church of Oak Park replies in the same we-do-not-care- to-explain style. He says: "Nor is it of consequence that Paul values comparatively lightly, having known him in the flesh."

The words "Paul valued comparatively lightly" are as misleading as the words "Paul _seldom_ quotes Jesus." Paul _never_ quotes Jesus'

teachings, and he _never_ met Jesus in the flesh. The clergyman's words, however, convey the impression that Paul knew Jesus in the flesh, but he valued that, knowledge "comparatively lightly," that is to say, he did not think much of it. And Dr. Barton is one of the foremost divines of the country.

And now about his admissions:

VI

I. "The Gospels, by whomever written," says the clergyman, "are reliable." By _whomever_ written! After two thousand years, it is still uncertain to whom we are indebted for the story of Jesus. What, in Dr. Barton's opinion, could have influenced the framers of the life of Jesus to suppress their ident.i.ty? And why does not the church instead of printing the words, "The Gospel according to Matthew or John," which is _not true,_--print, "The Gospel by _whomever_ written"?

II. "At the very least, four of Paul's epistles are genuine," says the same clergyman. Only four? Paul has thirteen epistles in the bible, and of only four of them is Dr. Barton certain. What are the remaining nine doing in the Holy Bible? And which 'four' does the clergyman accept as doubtlessly "genuine?" Only yesterday all thirteen of Paul's letters were infallible, and they are so still wherever no questions are asked about them. It is only where there is intelligence and inquiry that "four of them" at least are reliable. As honesty and culture increase, the number of inspired epistles decreases. What the Americans are too enlightened to accept, the church sends to the _heathen_.

III. "It is true that early a sect grew up which....held that Jesus could not have had a body of carnal flesh; but they did not question that he had really lived." According to Dr. Barton, these early Christians did not deny that Jesus had really lived,--they only denied that _Jesus could have had a body of carnal flesh_. We wonder how many kinds of flesh there are according to Dr. Barton. Moreover, does not the bible teach that Jesus was tempted in all things, and was a man of like pa.s.sions, as ourselves? The good man controls his appet.i.tes and pa.s.sions, but his flesh is not any different from anybody else's. If Jesus did not have a body like ours, then he did not exist as a human being. Our point is, that if the New Testament is reliable, in the time of the apostles themselves, the Gnostics, an influential body of Christians, denied that Jesus was any more than an imaginary existence. "But," pleads the clergyman, "these sects believed that Jesus was real, though not carnal flesh." What kind of flesh was he then? If by _carnal_ the Gnostics meant 'sensual,' then, the apostles in denouncing them for rejecting a carnal Jesus, must have held that Jesus was carnal or sensual. How does the Reverend Barton like the conclusion to which his own reasoning leads him?

IV. "It is true that there were literary fictions in the age following the apostles." This admission is in answer to the charge that even in the first centuries the Christians were compelled to resort to forgery to prove the historicity of Jesus. The doctor admits the charge, except that he calls it by another name. The difference between fiction and forgery is this: the former is, what it claims to be; the latter is a lie parading as a truth. Fiction is honest because it does not try to deceive. Forgery is dishonest because its object is to deceive. If the Gospel was a novel, no one would object to its mythology, but pretending to be historical, it must square its claims with the facts, or be branded as a forgery.

V. "We may not have the precise words Jesus uttered; the portrait may be colored;....tradition may have had its influence; but Jesus was real." A most remarkable admission from a clerical! It concedes all that higher criticism contends for. We are not sure either of Jesus'

words or of his character, intimates the Reverend preacher. Precisely.

In commenting on our remark that in the eighth century "Pope Hadrian called upon the Christian world to think of Jesus as a man," Dr.

Barton replies with considerable temper: "To date people's right to think of Jesus as a man from that decree is not to be characterized by any polite term." Our neighbor, in the first place, misquotes us in his haste. We never presumed to deny anyone the right to think of Jesus what he pleased, before or after the eighth century. (_The Debate,_ p. 28.) We were calling attention to Pope Hadrian's order to replace the lamb on the cross by the figure of a man. But by what _polite_ language is the conduct of the Christian church--which to this day prints in its bibles "Translated from the Original Greek,"

when no _original_ ma.n.u.scripts are in existence--to be characterized?

Dr. Barton's efforts to save his creed remind us of the j.a.panese proverb: "It is no use mending the lid, if the pot be broken."

VII

The most remarkable clerical effort thus far, which _The Mangasarian- c.r.a.psey Debate_ has called forth, is that of the Rev. E. V. Shayler, rector of Grace Episcopal Church of Oak Park.

"In answer to your query, which I received, I beg to give the following statement. Facts, not theories. The date of your own letter 1908 tells what? 1908 years after what? The looking forward of the world to Him."

Rev. Shayler has an original way of proving the historicity of Jesus.

Every time we date our letters, suggests the clergyman, we prove that Jesus lived. The ancient Greeks reckoned time by the Olympiads, which fact, according to this interesting clergyman, ought to prove that the Olympic games were inst.i.tuted by the G.o.d Heracles or Hercules, son of Zeus; the Roman Chronology began with the building of Rome by Romulus, which by the same reasoning would prove that Romulus and Remus, born of Mars, and nursed by a she-wolf, are historical.

Rev. Shayler has forgotten that the Christian era was not introduced into Europe until the sixth century, and Dionysius, the monkish author of the era, did not compute time from the birth of Jesus, but from the day on which the Virgin Mary met an angel from heaven. This date prevailed in many countries until 1745. Would the date on a letter prove that an angel appeared to Mary and hailed her as the future Mother of G.o.d? According to this clergyman, scientists, instead of studying the crust of the earth and making geological investigations to ascertain the probable age of the earth, ought to look at the date in the margin of the bible which tells exactly the world's age.

Rev. Shayler continues: "The places where he was born, labored and died are still extant, and have no value apart from such testimony."

While this is amusing, we are going to deny ourselves the pleasure of laughing at it; we will do our best to give it a serious answer. If the existence of such a country as Palestine proves that Jesus is real, the existence of Switzerland must prove that William Tell is historical; and the existence of an Athens must prove that Athene and Apollo really lived; and from the fact that there is an England, Rev.

Shayler would prove that Robin Hood and his band really lived in 1160.

The Reverend knows of another 'fact' which he thinks proves Jesus without a doubt:

"A line of apostles and bishops coming right down from him by his appointment to Anderson of Chicago," shows that Jesus is historical.

It does, but only to Episcopalians. The Catholics and the other sects do not believe that Anderson is a descendant of Jesus. Did the priests of Baal or Moloch prove that these beings existed?

The Reverend has another argument:

"The Christian Church--when, why and how did it begin?" Which Christian church, brother? Your own church began with Henry the Eighth in 1534, with persecution and murder, when the king, his hands wet with the blood of his own wives and ministers, made himself the supreme head of the church in England. The Methodist church began with John Wesley not much over a hundred years ago; the Presbyterian church began with John Calvin who burned his guest on a slow fire in Geneva about three hundred years ago; and the Lutheran church began with Martin Luther in the sixteenth century, the man who said over his own signature: "It was I, Martin Luther, who slew all the peasants in the Peasants War, for I commanded them to be slaughtered....But I throw the responsibility on our Lord G.o.d who instructed me to give this order;" and the Roman Catholic church, the parent of the smaller churches--all chips from the same block--began its real career with the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, who hanged his father-in- law, strangled his brother-in-law, murdered his nephew, beheaded his eldest son, and killed his wife. Gibbon writes of Constantine that "the same year of his reign in which he convened the council of Nice was polluted by the execution, or rather murder, of his eldest son."

But our clerical neighbor from Oak Park has one more argument: "Why is Sunday observed instead of Sat.u.r.day?" Well, why? Sun-day is the day of the Sun, whose glorious existence in the lovely heavens over our heads has never been doubted; it was the day which the Pagans dedicated to the Sun. _Sunday_ existed before the Jesus story was known,--the anniversary of whose supposed resurrection falls in March one year, and in April another. If Jesus rose at all, he rose on a certain day, and the apostles must have known the date. Why then is there a different date every year?

Rev. Shayler concludes: "Haven't time to go deeper now," and he intimates that to deny his 'facts' is either to be a fool or a "liar."

We will not comment on this. We are interested in arguments, not in epithets.

VIII

One of our Sunday programs, the other day, found its way into a church. It went farther; it made its appearance in the pulpit.

"In my hand I hold the notice of a publication bearing the t.i.tle _Is Jesus a Myth?"_ said Dr. Boyle. "This, too, just as though Paul never bore testimony."

This gave the clergyman a splendid opportunity to present in clear and convincing form the evidence for the reality of Jesus. But one thing prevented him:--the lack of evidence.

Therefore, after announcing the subject, he dismissed it, by remarking that Paul's testimony was enough.

The Rev. Morton Culver Hartzell, in a letter, offers the same argument. "Let Mr. Mangasarian first disprove Paul," he writes. The argument in a nutsh.e.l.l is this: Jesus is historical because he is guaranteed by Paul.

But _who_ guarantees Paul?

Aside from the fact that the Jesus of Paul is essentially a different Jesus from the gospel Jesus there still remains the question, Who is Paul? Let us see how much the church scholars themselves know about Paul:

"The place and manner and occasion of his death are not _less uncertain_ than the facts of his later life...The chronology of the rest of his life is as uncertain...We have no means of knowing when he was born, or how long he lived, or at what dates the several events of his life took place."

Referring to the epistles of Paul, the same authority says: "The chief of these preliminary questions is the genuineness of the epistles bearing Paul's name, which _if they be his_"--yes, IF--

The Christian scholar whose article on Paul is printed in the _Britannica_, and from which we are now quoting, gives further expression to this uncertainty by adding that certain of Paul's epistles "have given rise to disputes which cannot easily be settled in the absence of collateral evidence...The pastoral epistles...have given rise to still graver questions, and are probably even _less_ defensible."

Let the reader remember that the above is not from a rationalist, but from the Rev. Edwin Hatch, D. D., Vice-Princ.i.p.al, St. Mary Hall, Oxford, England.